• Welcome to all New Sikh Philosophy Network Forums!
    Explore Sikh Sikhi Sikhism...
    Sign up Log in

The Divisive Taboo Of Halal For Sikhs (from Langar Hall)


1947-2014 (Archived)
Jun 17, 2004

A general reminder. Debate issues not personalities. At all costs, avoid slurring the morality, character or identity of anyone, or your comments will be deleted. Avoid abusive language. Comments going off into a tanget about veg versus meat will be moved to another thread. Sorry to have to do this. Let's see how things go.


The Divisive Taboo of Halal for Sikhs (from Langar Hall)
Posted by Brooklynwala i

Like many Sikhs, I grew up eating meat. It was something I never really questioned until I was in college and started learning more about the treatment of animals on factory farms and the environmental impact of the meat industry.

But growing up I never thought about where my spicy deep-fried chicken strips were coming from. Or the living (and dying) conditions of the cow that made up the thinly sliced pieces of meat in my Arby’s roast beef sandwich. As long is it wasn’t halal, it was all good.

I never understood what halal truly meant, but the message I got from my parents and others in the community went something like this: Halal is the way Muslims slaughter animals, and it involves killing the animal slowly and painfully. And lots of gushing blood. We Sikhs don’t believe in torturing animals, so we don’t eat halal meat. Sound like a familiar story line?

This, of course, contributed to my perception of Muslims as barbaric people who were dirty, had multiple wives and questionable morals, and killed my ancestors during partition. In the context of the messages I received from family and community growing up, the story about halal fit right in – yet another way Muslims are backwards.

As is abundantly clear in my writing on this blog, this is in stark contrast to how I see Islam and the Muslim community at this point in my life. But I grew up with these messages and stereotypes just like most of my Sikh peers did.

Really, what’s all the fuss about halal? Why aren’t Sikhs supposed to eat halal meat?

Section Six of the Sikh Rehat Maryada (Code of Conduct) states:

The undermentioned four transgressions (tabooed practices) must be avoided:

1. Dishonouring the hair;
2. Eating the meat of an animal slaughtered the Muslim way;
3. Cohabiting with a person other than one’s spouse;
4. Using tobacco.

The most common argument I usually hear to explain the halal ban is simply that the Rehat Maryada says so. No disrespect to the Rehat Maryada or the (attempted) consensus-based process through which it was created in the first half of the 20th Century, but this is not a sufficient reason in and of itself. If the lives our Gurus have taught me anything, it is to think critically, question everything I’m told, and to always keep the love of Waheguru in my heart. So an argument based solely on citation of the Rehat Maryada (which our Gurus were not involved in writing) is not convincing to me.

Another common argument I hear is the aforementioned animal welfare argument: that slaughtering the Muslim way is unnecessarily painful for the animal—it’s a slow death and a form of torture. With jathka meat, on the other hand, the animal is killed swiftly, experiencing minimal pain.

Scientific research reveals a more complicated reality, however. A 1978 German study found that halal slaughtering actually caused less pain to calves and sheep than slaughtering after the animals were stunned by a captive bolt (the industry standard). A more recent New Zealand study, on the other hand, found that stunning reduces the pain of the slaughter. However, according to a study cited by the Guardian last year, “90% of animals killed for halal food in 2004 were stunned first. As in mainstream food production, the animal’s throat is then cut. So this supposedly sinister method, it seems, is not that different after all.”

Research studies aside, the intention of halal (and for Jews, kosher) slaughtering is to minimize pain and suffering to the animal. The Guardian states:

The definition of halal is anything that is legal or lawful for Muslims. In terms of meat, this can apply to what kind of animal is used (not pigs, for instance) and the way they are killed: an animal must be healthy, the butcher must make a recitation dedicating it to God, and the jugular vein, carotid artery and windpipe are cut with a single swipe from a sharp knife. As with kosher meat, the idea is that the animal dies immediately and the blood drains away. [my emphasis]

And in fact, if the animal is not killed immediately with a single swipe, it is not considered halal.

Thus, not eating halal because of our concern for animal welfare simply doesn’t make sense. If this was our primary concern in our food choices as a community, then I would argue we should talk about a Sikh prohibition of all factory-farmed meats, eggs, and dairy products. Animals on factory farms (or the official term, Concentrated Animal Feeding Operations, CAFOs) live in grotesquely unnatural, overcrowded conditions, never seeing the sun or grazing in the grass. Pumped with growth hormones and antibiotics, these animals are treated simply as units of production rather than living beings. There is nothing respectful or humane about the treatment of animals on factory farms, so why are we so concerned about halal and not worried about the cows that become our Big Mac or produce the milk in our cha?

A final explanation of the Sikh ban on halal meat I have often heard is we should not partake in the ritual or sacrificial killing of an animal. Of course, we Sikhs are not proponents of ritual for the sake of ritual:

jaalo aisee reeth jith mai piaaraa veesarai ||
Burn away those rituals which lead you to forget the Beloved Lord.
naanak saaee bhalee pareeth jith saahib saethee path rehai ||2||
O Nanak, sublime is that love, which preserves my honor with my Lord Master. |

(Guru Granth Sahib, p. 590)

But talk to a devout Muslim or Jew about halal or kosher, and you’ll likely find that they think of their respective religion’s practice of killing an animal as a necessary means to show respect to the animal and to God, since the animal is a creation of God. Is saying a prayer and remembering God while ending the life of a living being for the purposes of eating a blind ritual? Even if we don’t see it as a necessary step for our own religious practice as Sikhs, I would argue that it is not fundamentally contrary to the Sikh way of life.

Yes, I am raising questions and concerns about a guidelines set forth in the Rehat Maryada, and perhaps some readers will take issue with that. But over sixty years after our code of conduct was officially approved by the Panth, don’t we owe it to ourselves as a community to continually look inward and ask questions about where we are and where we are going?

From my own observations about the Sikh prohibition of halal meat, it does little to protect the well-being and humane treatment of animals and even less to get us closer to Waheguru. Instead, the prohibition of halal meat spreads misinformation and perpetuates stereotypical and demeaning attitudes about Islam and the Muslim community. While I have heard some say the prohibition is not about halal specifically, but about any sacrificial meat, the Rehat Maryada explicitly singles out “an animal slaughtered the Muslim way.” Rarely do I hear any talk of kosher meat being taboo for Sikhs.

At the heart of Sikhi is Ik Onkar – One Divine Light that shines in all human beings. Waheguru connects us all. Guru Gobind Singh was always clear that the Khalsa’s war was never against Muslim people or Islam, but it was against tyranny, which at the time was epitomized by Aurangzeb’s empire. Sadly, many in the contemporary Sikh community – maybe even a majority – have taken home a different message which they have taught to their kids, and their kids taught to their kids, and so on.

When do we stop this legacy and get back to the heart of Sikhi?

Sikhi is arguably one of the most inclusive philosophies of the major world religions. Yet it seems to me that prohibiting the eating of an “animal slaughtered the Muslim way” serves only to divide.



1947-2014 (Archived)
Jun 17, 2004
Tejwant ji

The only way one could find out is if the author knows that the article is here at SPN, or if one writes to him via Langar Hall.

Tejwant Singh

Jun 30, 2004
Henderson, NV.
spnadmin ji,

Guru Fateh.

The reason I asked the question was because I am sure you are also aware of, that we have seen similar kinds of threads before with the same researches from different people. So, it seems a bit suspicious. The writer tends to flip flop both ways but leans more towards halal although claiming to be a Sikh.

Having said that, animal cruelty is well known in the slaughter houses from the chickens to the cattle. Most of the cattle now a days are killed via a pressurized air guns shot on their temples which is an instant kill but sadly to notice that slaughter houses are becoming true to what they stand for and something must be done about that.


Tejwant Singh


1947-2014 (Archived)
Jun 17, 2004
Tejwant Singh ji

I understand how you would be suspicious. Here is the history of this thread. The link to the Langar Hall article on Halal was part of a different thread this morning when I logged on. The topic of this article was unrelated to the topic of the thread where it was first posted. The earlier posting characterized Broolynwale the author as a pro-Muslim advocate, also unrelated to the thread topic. I consulted with Aman Singh as to whether 1) to delete it entirely, or 2) to create a new thread just for this subject. We decided to go with choice 2. Basically we did not want to eliminate the topic, but wanted a better management of the subject matter. I doubt that Brooklynwale even knows about the thread.

Gyani Jarnail Singh

Sawa lakh se EK larraoan
Jul 4, 2004
The "arguments" the writer uses to "demolish" the SRM vis a vis Hallal....could also be used to same effect on ALL other 3 kurehits as well.

The MUSLIM WAY slaughter is mentioned due to the CONTEXT of the Sikh religion vis vis the Tyranny of the ruling Muslim classes when Sikhism was born. Kosher is not widley known even now...in fact 99.9 of sikhs or Hindus even may have not even seen a jew in their life..much less be forced to eat kosher as is the way with Hallal in ALL MUlsim ruled countries and in others where they have political strength.

In relation to "adultery" also, MOST REhatnamahs specifically mention MUSLIM WOMAN becasue the Sikhs were at WAR with Muslims and in a war it would be entirely conceivable that MUSLIM women and girls would become captives of the Sikh Victors and thus OPEN to ABUSE - hence the SPECIFIC PROHIBITION of any sexual relations ( rape/adultery) with a muslim woman. The Mulsims had no such restriction and raped and pillaged sikh and hindu girls..with invaders like Abdali taking back hundreds of thosuands as slaves.( Most of which were rescued by Sikhs under Jassa Singh Ahluwalliah attacking Abdalis forces on the way back to Afghanistan).

The VERY TITLE of the Article points to a very BIASED viewpoint. How can Sikhs be DIVISIVE by following their "sikh rehat maryada" while MUSLIMS are UNIFYING by following theirs and ENFORCING it on others. Similarly is Keeping KESH and Dastaar equally DIVISIVE ?? OF Course !! Because the moment we discard the long hair beards and dastaars we BLEND IN and DISAPPEAR into the sea of humanity comprising muslims hindus christians buddhists...???? and since almost everyone SMOKES tobacco..we are DIVISIVE when we refuse to touch it....become smokers and blend in...swordfight



📌 For all latest updates, follow the Official Sikh Philosophy Network Whatsapp Channel: